Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
England and Wales decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The evidence of grooming, vulnerability, and circumstances surrounding the sexual activity was sufficient for the jury to conclude lack of proper consent. Sentences imposed were within guideline ranges and not manifestly excessive. Restraining orders were not necessary given the historic nature of offences and lack of notice or reasons.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal refused renewed applications to appeal conviction and sentence, and declined an extension of time, in a stalking case involving guilty pleas and a restraining order.
DFB, R. v [2026] EWCA Crim 399 (30 March 2026)
The Court of Appeal quashed a restraining order made after acquittal, holding the original application was procedurally unfair because notice and evidential requirements were not properly met.
Relton, R. v [2026] EWCA Crim 328 (24 February 2026)
The Court of Appeal refused renewed applications to appeal conviction and sentence, and refused an extension of time, in a stalking and harassment case.
XFV, R. v [2026] EWCA Crim 287 (19 February 2026)
The Court of Appeal refused an extension to appeal conviction and dismissed the sentence appeal in a sexual offences case involving multiple complainants and breach of trust.
The restraining order was lawful and proportionate under section 360 of the Sentencing Act 2020, as there was an evidential basis for believing it was necessary to protect the victims from harassment or fear of violence, and the judge had sufficient material to infer the victims' views.
Source excerpt
Yasin & Ors, R. v [2026] EWCA Crim 68 (21 January 2026)
Court of Appeal upheld Yasin’s conviction appeal refusal and dismissed sentence challenges, but quashed restraining orders against Amar and Ajaib.
The judge was not entitled to impose the Deprivation Order based on acquitted counts, prohibitions in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the SHPO were not necessary, and indefinite duration for both SHPO and Restraining Order was unjustified; both orders should be limited to 15 years.
Source excerpt
The restraining order was made in circumstances that were procedurally unfair because the Appellant was not given proper notice of the evidence relied upon, was not given an opportunity to challenge the evidence or cross-examine the complainant, and the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Rules regarding hearsay and supporting evidence were not followed. As a result, the order must be quashed.
Source excerpt
Amoah, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 1770 (10 December 2025)
The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal against a restraining order imposed after convictions for attempted murder, wounding with intent and aggravated burglary.
Explore more
